JOHN FELDSTED: Civil legal proceedings have many aspects, and one is for a court to offer mediation between parties if mediation is possible

Wilson-Raybould directive to Justice Department staff raises alarm ... instructed Justice Department lawyers not to aggressively fight claims brought by Indigenous groups against the federal government

By Brian Giesbrecht ~~ Frontier Centre for Public Policy ~~ March 20, 2019

Since former Justice minister and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould’s dramatic testimony before a committee of the House of Commons, followed by the testimony of Gerald Butts and Michael Wernick, much attention has been paid to SNC-Lavalin and the questionable behaviour of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Mostly missed were the last words of Privy Council clerk Michael Wernick’s prepared opening statement to the same Justice committee.

... Wernick’s surprising disclosure raises immediate concern with respect to the recent Restoule treaties annuities case in Ontario. That case ended in a decision that will, if not upset on appeal, eventually cost taxpayers billions of dollars.

CLICK HERE top read the full story by Brian Giesbrecht

The directive raised concerns for who? It is alarming to who? 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Cabinet

ministers meet with leaders of National

Indigenous Organizations in Ottawa -- 2016

Why would a government committed to indigenous reconciliation engage in “aggressively fighting claims brought by Indigenous groups against the federal government”?

Why would the Indigenous Affairs Department continue to treat Indigenous people as enemies or as people who should meekly accept its dictates?

Civil legal proceedings have many aspects, and one is for a court to offer mediation between parties if mediation is possible. There are many shades of grey between aggressive defense and capitulation. It is not an all or nothing process.

I fail to understand why appealing a lower court decision on sound points of law could be defined as ‘aggressive’?

Appeals are a necessary part of our legal system to ensure that we ‘get it right’; otherwise, we risk lower court decisions of dubious value setting precedents.   

The article raises many questions -- and answers none. It highlights the necessity of separating the justice process from political considerations and indicates that our government finds itself embroiled in a series of internal conflicts that are serving no one.

The concept of reconciliation between our government, and indigenous people, is a worthy goal. It appears we have made a commitment to reconciliation without a sound plan to achieve the goal. That is not acceptable or in the interests of taxpayers and Canadians.

The principle of equality before and under the law overrides the special interests of any group.

John Feldsted

Political Consultant & Strategist

Winnipeg, Manitoba